tv [untitled] December 18, 2012 11:00pm-11:30pm PST
guns in an outdoor area. and also just the fact that we have had so much gun violence all over this nation recently. it's really frightening. and san francisco is a different kind of place. and i would think in a public park where people are coming to a natural area to enjoy a park. that having a gun club where people are outdoors and shooting gun in a public park area is not the best use of san francisco's land. and if we get rid of it, and focus on doing the clean-up as rapidly as possible. and focus on important things like fixing up the the boat house and its equipment. we will head in a much better direction. and please sfpuc govern as much as this as you can.
>> dr. jackson. >> thank you very much, dr. jackson is here. i agree, that need to be a workshop. what happens in san francisco, people come here late and don't know the neighborhoods. and what is been going on in the neighborhoods. and it's the neighbors that can tell you. and i support the idea that you, since you were responsible for water and sewage, that you take charge. that is your responsibility. the water sheds is your responsibilities. so i am here supporting the residents from lake merced, because the lake is the most -- was at one time the most beautiful lake in any city. because i used to go over there and fish, i am a fishing woman. and i would like to continue. and i agree about although i do own a gun. but i don't believe that there should be a place out there where there is a park, where
people are shooting bullets. bullets can go anywhere, because it don't have no name on it, in the direction it should go. i feel as though when i go and practice for my shooting, it's inside. it's not outside. and it's there in davis city. so i hope you listen to what the people are saying here. and support and be a part of which we are a part of you. and do the right thing. and if the gun people don't want to clean up, then move them out. thank you. >> any other public comment. >> i want to comment on the request of the city attorney to look into the bond. during the working group on the bond that was just adopted. i was concerned that the puc
would not be on equal footing with the port of san francisco that is getting substantially more money out of that bond. i asked supervisor elsbernd, would you please amend the bond. but it was right down the wire, and he said if we start amending the bond, it will open up all kinds of things. but assured us that this commission, it's your bond money. and i assume that you would like to use your watershed report and your intelligence to come up with a viable plan. i also had that same kind of assurance from the lead staffer at rec park. so it wasn't written into the bond, but that was the intent. >> mr. decosta. >> first and foremost, i would
like to thank our elders for being very articulate in giving us a history of some that is a treasure. now people at home, when you say watershed, they may think it's a shed on a water. no, a watershed is an underground lake, and in this case stretches from the persidio all the way to lake merced. now when we worked out of persidio, we had a lot of reports done by the corp of engineers and others, dealing with these issues. dealing with the windmills. dealing with valves. so i know pretty well what is happening in this area. i also know what is happening with the boat house. because our young men, and some of them came here, some meetings
ago. they asked about the destruction of that boat house. now it is time that this commission listens to those who volunteered thousands and thousands of hours. that they get something where they can pass on their legacy. they are warriors, they need to pass this legacy to our younger people. our younger people when they use that lake in the right way, they will pass it on to their children. much like the first people. i go to that lake. i see (inaudible). the connection between that lake and the first people. just like there is a connection between that lake and mountain lake at the persidio. and so on and so forth. but commissioners, let us not
allow rec and park to control our assets. and this guy, who from rec and park, he should be here. or he is going to wait for some mou. he needs to be here or some representative from rec and park needs to be here to do due diligence. they are very proud the way they conduct their business. i know that. so mr. chair, you know how to do this things. we need a workshop. we need our elders here who have spoken to be a part of that workshop. so that the right people give the right information to the right people to take this city and county of san francisco to a better place. thank you. >> thank you, sir. is there any other public
comment? commissioner vietor. >> i don't know where to start here, there is a lot on the table. first of all i want to thank steve ritchie, i know how full your plate is. and i know how long you have been working on this, and how complicated it is in some ways. and in some ways not that complicated. but i know how much effort you put in. and i want to thank but for the lake merced task force, but for all of you coming and keeping us on point on this. and reminding us the history and value of this important asset of the puc's. and i am also discouraged that no one from rec and park is here. because i feel like they should be. it's an important conversation and we are trying to get a common understanding if not relationship going with regards
to this site. to keep on a big-picture view. there are several assets that the puc, parks and real estate that the puc owns that rec and park manages. and i don't know if we have, maybe this is a conversation for a later time. mous for each individual parcel. or an overarching mou, that we are the owners and you are the managers, and you do recreation and we don't. but i think it's something that we should consider if we don't have individuals or an overarching one that governs the relationship with rec and park. and with regards to lake merced, and maybe it's a question, steve, i don't want to repeat my comments i made at the last meeting. where is the mou? when is the mou coming? what it will look like?
do we still need an mou, we are operating under the old one. it seems like we need a definition of who is responsible for what. and maybe this bond money is the perfect opportunity to reopen those conversations, and say, this is what should be govern the spending of these monies and what the priorities should be. the fact there is not a plan or schedule, even the whole capital effort of that site. and because it's one of our most important assets and tied with our ssip work and infrastructure issues we are looking at. it elevates it to a higher priority than it was. and it seems like it's been a pretty high priority. and i sort of hear, isn't an
mou, that feels like a broken record. is that where we are today? what is the best way to clarify the responsibilities and take the best possible care of that lake. knowing the treasure it is. one last point, i support the idea of a workshop. i don't know if it's workshop. we have talked about the meetings in the southeast, but it would be interesting to have a meeting on the west side. and maybe at the boat house to invite that neighborhood and community to be more active. and to hear and maybe the target and focus is lake merced. it's an opportunity for a site visit but an opportunity to be in that neighborhood and have a puc meeting out in the city somewhere, besides city hall. i would support that and hope that maybe we could calendar
that in the not too distance future. and i would like to hear the response from steve and the comments of mou. >> i won't respond to all comments because so many. but i will make one comment about the schedule for the john muir property. when in the public meeting and talked about the possibility of a new boat house. and i said that may take eight years, and it was responded that no three times than that. it takes time in san francisco. and it's hard to do something. what happens to the john muir property we expect an idea what have the clean-up will be in a year or year-and-a-half. and as that starts to become clear, the commission can look at what do with the property. we won't wait eight years to
decide what to do with the property. as far as the mou, in may when we talked about, there was concern as rec and park that day didn't have ideas to offer. i think we have come well past that. they are doing things. there are things they have underway at the lake. i think there is more material now. we didn't do any work on the mou between then and now. we wanted to have something to grasp. and we are there now. and i think having the bond money available is one piece of that. i think the future of the john muir property is something else. it's going to be a recreational use, that's what we are thinking about the clean-up for, and what is the best use and need to hear from the public and rec and park. and how do we define that relationship. and we have a better basis to do
an mou. jerry mentioned one to cut rec and park out of everything. i don't think that's the best way to go, but if the commission thinks, that's something. and everyone keeps coming here. and i asked the advocates have you gone to the rec and park commission. and they said no. i think they should go there and talk about recreation. that's a good step that i recommend. >> and i would like to add, i think that workshop would be a good idea. we are hearing from one certain group. and they may be hearing from others. and so it would make sense if we have a workshop to hear from everyone as we put together the mou with rec and park. >> commissioner moran. >> thank you, mr. chair. there is a danger when you let people with whiskers in the room, they remind of you what is
going on for a long time and not always pretty. i could hear commissioner's caen's blood boiling for a while there. and my memory of our discussion in may is fairly similar to what mr. catikin communicateded to us. what started with a discussion about mou, turned into a discussion whether or not rec park was an agency that could do a job. and the showing at that meeting was pretty dismal. and we asked that rec/park come back to us in a short period of time. nomally six months. and show us a plan for what they
were going to do. and action they had taken. and demonstrate and show us they were capable of stepping up and doing the job. progress has been made. that particular showing has not happened. i look at this, i think it's very clear that we own the land. i think it's very clear that we have a responsibility for maintaining the watershed and the assets that are there. both the underground and the surface expression of that, as you stated. we own several pieces of land where we have recreation, and we contract that out. golf courses is classic example. and this is similar, we have a piece of land to protect for the water purposes. where there is another public use, that goes beyond our expertise, we ask someone to do for us. the obvious one is the sister
agency whose business is recreation and parks and management. that's not the only option but it's the first and most obvious as we come back to this in an mou discussion, we need to think about it this those terms. the same way we would if contracting with arnold palmer to run a course. what is it we want done. are these responsible bidders. and the terms of the mou would reflect performance benchmarks and periodic review so we don't get in a 20-year and turns out they are not doing the job. and with the investment made in the lake merced plan, there ought to be some incorporation of that plan or reference of that plan in the mou as well.
i very much want to see this thing move. i don't want us to have this coming may and following november having the same discussion again. i would like to see it move. i think it's important that rec/park demonstrate a commitment and capability of doing that. if they are in fact to do it. and any mou we have with them needs to resemble a contract with any vendor to get that work done. and provisions to hold them accountable. i look forward to that coming back as soon as it can come back. it needs to happen soon. this has been painfully, painfully slow. >> i will simply add along the lines of the general manager's comments. i am looking forward to having a conversation. i grew up on the west side, for
those who don't know, and spent a loot -- lot of time in that area. and i am under the prospect of having a commission meeting in the the culture center. that would be an interesting opportunity. public comment is closed and unless objections move on to the next item. another public comment? please come up. >> thank you, this will be very short. on the topic of neighborhood meeting. a couple of years ago rec and park did hold a meeting at the sunset center, which i attended. and it started off to be a great meeting, and mark was there as well. we didn't realize it but there were a lot of people from the rod and gun club. and the expression, they
hijacked it. and some were fuelled with good spirit and it got out of control. we lost our focus, unfortunately. but there was an attempt to learn more about the process at lake merced. and i am sorry there haven't been anymore neighborhood meetings. but i have attended rec and park meetings because i like the commissioner and the work they do. >> on owns the building out there? we or rec and park? >> the structures. the boat house. >> the structures. the boat house, who owns it? do we? >> i believe that the recreation department owns the harding boat house, i am not sure who owns the harding clubhouse. and the rod and gun club property were built and it's not clear who owns them.
>> that's the answer you were looking for? >> i should defer to the city attorney office. you own the land. once more, you own the land. and i understand and this is from recollection. rec and park supervised the building of the boat house. should we go back to law school? i don't know who owns, i suspect you do. you are a lawyer. >> we can tear them down and then find out. >> yeah, the watershed report suggests that it be torn down, but instead you are putting $2 million into it. i think you own that whole tract of land, and if someone built something out there, that's yours. >> i would like to look into
that. >> the city and county of san francisco owns lake merced tract, under the jurisdiction of fsp. the city owns the land, and the building, you have jurisdiction over the tract. if rec park financed improvements there, then the way that we conduct business within the city. we respect each other's improvements. but it is your right to make improvements to that building as well. it's on your property. it's owned by the city. with the respect of the gun club, it's different, they have a private lease and they made improvements and they can take that back but unaware of those constructed by the city and county of san francisco. that's kind of how it works. >> so it seems like the mou,
which hopefully we receive a draft of that in the not too distance future. should answer the preamble so we have a sense of what we hold and what our parameters are. and i think that it needs this clarification in there, to proceed with the mou. when could we have a draft? >> so the first question, if you want a workshop and everyone with interest in there to give us feedback. so it would help us iron out the mou. but i hear from some of the people out there their concern about different people stacking the meeting. so -- but i am interested in maybe pursuing a workshop. so that we have an idea or flavor of what activities are out there.
so the first thing is we get with rec and park, we will set up a workshop out there. and based off of that, we can come back with a draft mou of what the role and responsibilities and activities with some measurable outcome and performance measures. >> so at the workshop we would probably have the mou to review and discuss and take public comment at that time? >> the way i see it, we have the workshop first and based on the workshop that helps us formulate -- thank you, formulate the mou. and then i would say after that we would come back here and give you an update and have a draftmou. so the timeline? hopefully in say two months we will have the hearing. get some comments. and then maybe three weeks after that we will have a draft and
schedule that. >> commissioners. very good. thank you very much for those who attended. and we are looking forward to picking up the ball where we left off. madam secretary, the next order of business. >> item 8, bswsca update. >> thank you, that was quite entertaining. and will it may have been difficult for your staff to participate. but in the future if that's a public hearing or wosh --
workshop, i would appreciate that there is time on the agenda so the others could be heard. i would like to announce that the board approved in the meeting the issuance of bonds. your staff has it on agenda to get your improvement with bawsca to work it out. and appreciate all the work of the attorneys and outside attorne attorneys. and we worked well together, this matched what our board approved. no need to go back for other approvals. i hope we can go forward today and issue bonds in mid-january, thank you. >> any public comment on this item? hearing none, public comment is closed.
madam secretary, read the next order of business. >> item 9 is consent calendar, items are to be considered to be retained by the san francisco public utilities commission, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. >> would any commissioners wish to remove any items? seeing none, we will take them together. motion? >> move. >> second. >> motion is moved and seconded. any discussion? is there any public comment? seeing none. public comment is closed. all in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> the ayes have it, the motion carries. madam secretary, the next order of business. >> item 10, discussion and
possible action to approve and execute a wholesale water revenue prepayment collection and agreement. >> todd rydstrom. you have heard of this item and you aassumed a partial repayment. what is before you is a culmination of a lot of hard work and congratulations to mr. jensen and his team that got this through and the legislature and the governor. it's refunding like the sewer bond refunding. and this allows wholesale customers to early repay retail customers. it achieves savings for our wholesale customers. and allow us to smooth rates for our retail customers.
a few brief slides. $362 million, or up to, could be the potential early repayment for previously funded capital. that retail investors have made in the system. bawsca is able to issue bonds now on wholesale customers as approved by the governor and legislature, and this is effective january 1. this prepayment again was envisioned in part in your budget hearing discussions. but we only assumed $50 million but with market conditions and they may want to repay up to the whole $362 million. other slides. prepayments to the wholesale
customers is cost savings. because of low interest rates. and it's the same story you heard on us selling to low cost bonds. to repayors it's a timely difference of when we receive money. it allows us to smooth out and have lower rate increases over the next five years. on the other hand we won't have interest earnings on the portion no longer outstanding. it's a trade off. but contractually wholesale customers are able and have the right to do this under the contract. before you is the prepayment and collection agreement and the tax certificate. because that's integral on the tax exempt borrowing that bawsca will be doing on the proceeds. the use of proceeds is a commitment that we make in the representation of the tax covenant. it says that